<<still think you should rather improve Namecoin>>We can't improve NMC cuz of Namecoin is, so to say, private property ofVinced to some degree.He is good guy with its own ideas.We are not capable to change his decisions and so be it.

Also we don't want to hardfork Namecoin.

"...Enemies are everywhere ! Angka is all rage ! Be a good soldiers, blow everything... " <-- Pol Pot (C)

<<still think you should rather improve Namecoin>>We can't improve NMC cuz of Namecoin is, so to say, private property ofVinced to some degree.He is good guy with its own ideas.We are not capable to change his decisions and so be it.

Also we don't want to hardfork Namecoin.

Not true. Namecoin is opensource. We can't fork it because dianna's design went far away from namecoin design. We cant improve it, because we will destroy it by this improvement.

<<still think you should rather improve Namecoin>>We can't improve NMC cuz of Namecoin is, so to say, private property ofVinced to some degree.He is good guy with its own ideas.We are not capable to change his decisions and so be it.

Also we don't want to hardfork Namecoin.

Not true. Namecoin is opensource. We can't fork it because dianna's design went far away from namecoin design. We cant improve it, because we will destroy it by this improvement.

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

did you ever give a real explanation for that claim? I still don't see why it should not be possible to add dynamic fees to namecoin.

NameCoin and any other fork always vulnerable to 51% attack.

Also, if you set correct dynamic fee, it will destroy namecoin, as it destroying it.

I see the acceptable domain price around icann values ~$10/year.

Are namecoin going to destroy all these money?

NameCoin is not really vulnerable to a 51% attack. because of merged mining it is much much safer than all the other forks. From the difficulty I estimate the Namecoin hashrate to be 40% of the Bitcoin hashrate - that means not even deepbit could 51% attack it. In my eyes it is the most secure cryptocurrency next to bitcoin - though being a currency is not a even particular goal.

edit 2012-02-24: oops, I got that one wrong - deepbit sure could run a successful 51% attack, but only deepbit. And I trust Tycho more than other pool operators.

I will only believe you can build a system as safe when I see it working.

imho the price of namecoins should be just so high that domain hoarding/squatting is prevented. actually the only reason for namecoins having a value is to do that and to guarantee mining.

if I could set a price it would be $1/year now and $5/year once it is established (=supported by mainstream dns servers)

Please understand I enjoy your interest and work for decentralized dns very much - it might even give some additional momentum to Namecoin. The day might come when bitcoin will desperately need p2p dns. But I think you approach is wrong or at least the reasons you give don't make sense to me.

The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.

You remind me the words of Alan Greenspan: "US debt is not a problem, we always can print this money".

Well, I dont see the sense in continuing this debate if you dont understand that every work must be paid.

The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.

You remind me the words of Alan Greenspan: "US debt is not a problem, we always can print this money".

Well, I dont see the sense in continuing this debate if you dont understand that every work must be paid.

I think you chose not to debate because your arguments are vague and full of holes. You have oft repeated this "going to destroy namecoin", but that is as good as the argument gets, that you have repeated it many times doesn't make it more or less truthful.

But each to its own and the proof of the pudding is always is in the eating ... let me know when DIANNA is ready for "stress testing", I'll go sharpen up some 'test' tools.

All my arguments you already read and your answer was only "fuck off man, namecoin is fine".

Your arguments consist of vaguely written documents and flow charts. Your amazing leap of logic is that burning a few coins for the name_firstupdate op will ZOMG! "destroy namecoin" (somehow, maybe) is ridiculous and, as yet, unsubstantiated in theory or practice.

And please do not put filthy words like that into my mouth, I never said anything like that.

I can't get past the broken English, which may have something to do with the lack of nuance and communication.

If you feel Universe has trolled you exclusively, please donate to Emergency Butthurt Support Fund: 1Jv4wa1w4Le4Ku9MZRxcobnDFzAUF9aotHProceeds go to Emergency Butthurt Escape Pod none of you will be allowed to use. If you have read this far, you must pay Emergency Butthurt Internet Tax.